Originally posted by hawkiye
The stupidity in this thread is monumental.

Well your post certainly has lowered the IQ of this thread.

The Paul's do not approve of the system but it is the system in place so they get as much money back for thier states as they can as long as
that is the system. it is really that simple those making a big deal out of it are either too mentally challenged to understand this or
trolls.

The very idea that you began your sentence with "the Paul's" inferring that they had the same position on earmarks during the election shows you are
really not qualified to be calling anyone stupid or mentally challenged.

Rand Paul repeatedly distinguished himself from his father in his position on earmarks during the campaign.

That is the exact nature of his "Flip" to adopting his fathers position once elected.

I am not overly concerned with the legitimacy of Earmarks in my OP as I am with a TP candidate immediately abandoning one of the centerpieces of his
campaign, a position that garnered him TP support, once he is elected.

The Paul's do not approve of the system but it is the system in place so they get as much money back for thier states as they can as long as that is
the system.

Playing the system is indeed a sound argument for politicians and prostitutes alike.

So they should let the money stolen from thier states go to the Administration instead of getting back the stolen funds for thier state? I always
get a kick out of the illogic and pathetic attempts of the mentally challenged to support thier emotional irrationality.

Originally posted by hawkiye
The stupidity in this thread is monumental.

Well your post certainly has lowered the IQ of this thread.

The Paul's do not approve of the system but it is the system in place so they get as much money back for thier states as they can as long as
that is the system. it is really that simple those making a big deal out of it are either too mentally challenged to understand this or
trolls.

The very idea that you began your sentence with "the Paul's" inferring that they had the same position on earmarks during the election shows you
are really not qualified to be calling anyone stupid or mentally challenged.

Rand Paul repeatedly distinguished himself from his father in his position on earmarks during the campaign.

That is the exact nature of his "Flip" to adopting his fathers position once elected.

I am not overly concerned with the legitimacy of Earmarks in my OP as I am with a TP candidate immediately abandoning one of the centerpieces of his
campaign, a position that garnered him TP support, once he is elected.

edit on 9-11-2010 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)

You have clearly shown your mental challenges. Since Ron Paul does not approve of the ear marks system this is a fact and I just explained why he
uses it and why Ran Paul will too. Ron Paul has repeatedly called for an end to the system. www.ronpaul.com... The
fact that you and so many other cannot understand this only illustrates what is wrong with this country.

The Paul's do not approve of the system but it is the system in place so they get as much money back for thier states as they can as long as that is
the system.

Playing the system is indeed a sound argument for politicians and prostitutes alike.

So they should let the money stolen from thier states go to the Administration instead of getting back the stolen funds for thier state? I always
get a kick out of the illogic and pathetic attempts of the mentally challenged to support thier emotional irrationality.

Speaking of emotional irrationality...Whether earmarks are good or not is not the OP...

The fact that Rand Paul campaigned on banning earmarks, going as far as saying he would never ask for them...even for his own state...signed a pledge
saying he would never ask for earmarks..all for TP support and then after he is elected, even before he is signed into office sits down with a WSJ
reporter and says he will ask for Earmarks for KY...all of that is lost on you as you try to derail the thread and make this a thread about wether
earmarks are good...desperatly still trying to defend a liar and hypocrit.

I think we can all agree with the fact that Rand Paul did an about face on the issue of earmarks.

We all seem to have different opinions of what we should do about it. I think we should just tie the hands of congress, others think we should play
the system while the gettin' is good. Some of us are trying to have this discussion and all that it entails on a civil level. Those of you who are
busy sniping at each other are not doing the rest of us a favor.

Originally posted by hawkiye
You have clearly shown your mental challenges. Since Ron Paul does not approve of the ear marks system this is a fact and I just explained why he
uses it and why Ran Paul will too. Ron Paul has repeatedly called for an end to the system. www.ronpaul.com... The
fact that you and so many other cannot understand this only illustrates what is wrong with this country.

SInce you seem to want to insult folks rather than think...I will keep it simple for you

Pre-election

Ron Paul...Against earmarks, but will use them while they are part of the system.

Rand Paul...Against earmarks and will never ask for them even for my home state of KY.
Rand signed a pledge promising just that. He stated that in interviews.

* After he was elected Rand flipped to his father's position.

During the election his rhetoric of never using earmarks...his pledge that he signed..all of it helped him earn TP credibility.

He no longer needs those votes....Flip...Flop....Flip...Flop

I have a hard time thinking that you don't understand...but who knows.

I read the whole thread from the beginning and your posts and responded in the beginning also, I saw nothing that supports your claim so either post
it or put a sock in it

His website says he will ban wasteful earmark spending this is consistent with his Fathers stance neither have ever said they would ban earmark
spending all together but that the earmark system needs to be reformed.

“Anybody out there who is requesting earmarks … is going to be hung around their neck come the November elections and primaries because people
know about it, they are going to talk about it, it is going to affect how people vote. It’s one of the fundamental things people are looking at when
they are looking at reform — they are looking at people running for Congress who know that their job is not simply to bring home the bacon,”
Meckler said.

Earmark ban coming?
Published on 10 March 2010 by David Adams in General News
0 Rand Paul has made a ban on wasteful earmark spending in Washington D.C. one of the key points of his campaign. He has supported Sen. Jim DeMint’s
vocal support for an earmark ban and he supports news that House Democrats are even coming around on the idea of a partial ban.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.